...will he ever win?

Well, my goodness. It looks as though the people in the path of that massive ash spill are going to be, um, immunologically challenged! Yes, despite offical assurances, it turns out there's all kinds of nasty stuff in the sludge. And surprise, surprise - the EPA knew, because they'd already released a study: The risk assessment examined 181 coal combustion waste disposal sites throughout the country and found that unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what the government considers "acceptable." The report also found that coal ash disposal sites release toxic chemicals and metals such as arsenic, lead, boron, selenium, cadmium, thallium, and other pollutants at levels that endanger human health and the environment. "Clean" coal, huh?

December 30, 2008 09:00 PM

One thing is clear: the GOP is not about to fold up shop and go along with Barack Obama, just because he's President and the Democrats won a substantial legislative victory as well last November.  They're already starting to marshall their forces to oppose,  or at least slow down, and render as ineffective as possible, whatever stimulus package Obama comes up with.  And, of course, recycling lies about the New Deal, FDR and the Great Depression are essential parts of the package.  On Sunday I wrote a diary, "A Brief Peek At UCLA's Anti-FDR Propaganda", which looked only at the gross parameters surrounding claims made in a paper that David had referred to in passing in a previous diary.

While kanzeon weighed in late to make the point: "The measure of when the Depression ended, to conservative critics, isn't usually GDP or real output, but unemployment," negative GDP growth is the standard by which economists routiney identify recesssions--and by extension depressions--as well as being the single most comprehensive measure of economic activity (for good or ill), so I still think it's useful to look a little more closely at GDP as a pre-emptive antidote against conservative/GOP bullshit that's bound to be coming at us in the days ahead.

The UCLA report claimed that the Depression should have ended in 1936--7 years after it began, and roughly 3 3/4 years after FDR took office.  Without ignoring Kanzeon's caveat, that still seems rather hard to accept given just how badly the GDP was doing.  Thing is, I don't think I've ever seen a clear graphical representation of just how bad that was.  So I decided to make one myself.  Given the UCLA author's belief in a magic 7-year time-frame, I decided to chart the 7-year GDP growth figures from around the beginning of the US economy to date.  You can clearly see just how drastically the Great Depression departs from anything else in our history, as well as just how powerful our recovery was, particularly once WWII spending kicked in:

This chart just goes to show how incredibly unusual the Great Depression was.  No wonder a large number of people, all across the political spectrum, thought that it well might be the end of capitalism.  There was nothing remotely like it in all our history.  And the idea that everything could readily be solved by simply letting normal economic forces work--as the UCLA researchers propose--seems utterly unbelievable, simply by looking at the relatively limited scope of any of the other previous sharp rises, none of which is remotely large enough to get us back into the 20-40% 7-year GDP growth range that is normal for the economy in the specified 7-year time frame--much less the 3 3/4 years that FDR actually had in office before the end of 1936 rolled around.
Another way of looking at that same data is look at the distribution of 7-year GDP growth-rates.  Here we see that the vast majority fall between 10% and 55%.  That's a pretty broad range by any measure--a factor of 5+.  Outside it we only have 9 growth rates that are higher, and 10 that are lower:

As it turns out, the four negative 7-year growth rates are all associated with the depths of the Great Depression, 1932-1935, before FDR's recovery had gained enough steam to cancel out the disastrous performance during Hoover's term after the Great Crash.  The next 3-slowest growth rates, all 1% or less--covered the two years either side of the 4 years with a negative total, plus 1914.

On the other hand, the top 9 years, with 7-year growth over 55%, include 1883 with 59.4%, 1882 with 61.7%, and 7 straight years of the WWII/Great Depression recovery period, 1940 to 1946.  Those two bookending years clocked in with a paltery 62.7% for 1940, and 67.2% for 1946. Beyond that it was 72.0% for 1941, 87.2% for 1942, 92.8% for 1943, 98.3% for 1944, and 103.1% for 1945.

With spectacular growth rates like that, it's hardly surprising that things would have to taper off, eventually, and thus it's not really so surprising that 2 of the last 3 years on the extreme low end of 7-year GDP growth are 1950 and 1951, with 6.4% and 6.0% growth respectively.  The only other year not directly or indirectly connected to the Great Depressio and its recovery period is 1897, with a 9.1% 7-year GDP growth, the lowest ebb recorded that was associated with the Panic of 1893, and its aftershocks.

December 30, 2008 08:30 PM

 This is cross-posted from DMI blog.

First things first. Congress and the incoming Obama Administration are hammering out an economic recovery package with major investments in infrastructure, education, energy efficiency, health programs and aid to the states and localities (see Paul Krugman’s excellent discussion of why such assistance is particularly vital during an economic downturn). While the to-be-decided details of the plan will be critical to its success, the broad outlines look like precisely what the ailing U.S. economy desperately needs: a plan that creates jobs quickly while addressing the nation’s long-term public investment priorities and helping those hardest hit by the recession. Phew!

I know what they say: don’t count your policy victories before they’re passed. But while we work for the right kind of stimulus, we also need to think about the wider context. As we look for a path back to the economic good times we’ve also got to face the fact that, for a lot of Americans, the good times of the 21st Century so far weren’t actually that good. At the peak of the last economic cycle, during a time of high productivity and soaring corporate profits, middle-class Americans still hadn’t recovered the ground lost in the last downturn. We earned less, borrowed more to make ends meet, and were even less likely to have employer-sponsored health care. Something is deeply wrong with that picture.

What this tells us is that working people don’t have enough power in the labor market to ensure that their incomes keep pace with the rising cost of living – even during the best of times. Historically, one powerful way to build that power has been through labor unions.

December 30, 2008 08:28 PM

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's decision to appoint former state attorney general Roland Burris to the Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama further complicates an already difficult situation for state and national Democrats. Blagojevich has been operating under...

December 30, 2008 08:10 PM

Former Bush aides go on record saying that Hurricane Katrina was the "tipping point" of George Bush's presidency and that, after the federal government's pathetic response, he couldn't recover. Unfortunately for the residents of the gulf coast, President Bush wasn't the only one.

AP:

Hurricane Katrina not only pulverized the Gulf Coast in 2005, it knocked the bully pulpit out from under President George W. Bush, according to two former advisers who spoke candidly about the political impact of the government's poor handling of the natural disaster.

"Katrina to me was the tipping point," said Matthew Dowd, Bush's pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign. "The president broke his bond with the public. Once that bond was broken, he no longer had the capacity to talk to the American public. State of the Union addresses? It didn't matter. Legislative initiatives? It didn't matter. P.R.? It didn't matter. Travel? It didn't matter."

December 30, 2008 08:00 PM

New Years is usually a time for optimism. But here at Donklephant, we’re committed to discussing both sides of everything. So, for all you pessimists out there, here’s a list for you. It’s Saxo Bank’s outrageous predictions for the coming year. I’ve added my own commentary to spice things up.

1) An Iranian revolution. Because that worked out so well for us the last time.

2) Oil hits $25 barrel. Good for SUV manufacturers, not so great for the world economy. Or that proposed windfall tax.

3) S&P drops to 500. No worries. Retirement is for the indolent.

4) Italy drops Euro. Rest of world hurts brain calculating the Lira again.

5) Australian dollar crashes. But boomerangs and Fosters will be cheaper.

6) Euro will be unstable against U.S. dollar. So? Not like any of us can afford international travel.

7) Chinese GDP growth at 0%. That’ll show them to tie their economy to American greed.

8) Eastern European currencies fail. So it’s not a good time to stock up on Belarusian rubles?

9) Commodities prices plunge. So, really, a mattress with a nice hole in it may be the best investment next year.

10) Chinese Yen becomes currency peg in Asia. Yeah, well, we still have South America.

December 30, 2008 07:16 PM

This is a subject close to my heart, since I've spent at least half of the past decade as a member of the uninsured class. Right now, I'm unemployed again and paying COBRA out of reader donations - donations which run out next month, with no job in sight. Oh well!

When Obama announced Tom Daschle as his health czar, my heart sank. After all, Daschle worked for a law firm whose lobbying arm represented the insurance industry, and that didn't bode well for actual reform. Instead, it seems to point toward corporate-friendly incrementalism.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are focused enough to produce legislation which actually solves this massive problem. But voters will certainly have to stay vocal if they want to make their own interests the priority in this national healthcare debate:

Karen Goroncy, a home health aide in Washington, Pa., has taken care of people for 25 years but can't afford health insurance to take care of herself.

A reader has promised to buy Goroncy insurance after she was profiled this fall in The Inquirer, and she hopes to have hernia surgery in the New Year.

But short of the generosity of readers - not a good national solution - Goroncy and millions like her are awaiting the sweeping health reform now being considered by President-elect Barack Obama.

Obama's plan, which has not been formally announced, could mark the biggest change in health care in 40 years. A central goal will be to cover 50 million Americans who don't have insurance. It is conceivable that all Americans will be required by law to have health insurance.

A principal architect of Obama's reform - Tom Daschle, nominated to become secretary of the Health and Human Services Department - has written at length about creating a powerful new board that would control health-care spending much like the Federal Reserve Board influences the nation's monetary policy.

December 30, 2008 07:05 PM

Soon-to-be Senator Roland Burris?

Rod “I am the Governor” Blagojevich is calling every one’s bluff.  Blago is set later today to appoint former Illinois Attorney General and Comptroller Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat.

Back on December 9, I made the obvious point that the only “absolutely certain” way to prevent Blago from making this appointment was this: “the Senate leadership of both parties should announce that they will recommend against seating any such replacement — no matter who it might be — and as many Senators as are willing to do so should publicly join in their leaders’ declaration.”

The Democratic Caucus did make an unnecessarily vague statement along those lines, but Reid and company didn’t follow through, so it shouldn’t be surprising that Burris is willing to accept the appointment.  And while it shouldn’t matter, the fact that Burris is African-American does matter.  Since Obama resigned, the Senate once again does not have a single African-American member.  Blago can wield that fact as a weapon against anyone who opposes the appointment.  Since the Senate did not make it 100% clear that no one appointed by him would be accepted, Blago will do his best to cast any move to refuse to seat Burris as a slap at black people.  At the very least, this will give him an argument to make to the state’s sizable African-American community, a crucial constituency as the federal criminal case against Blago and impeachment proceedings in the Illinois Legislature unfold.  While Obama could help mobilize African-Americans against the appointment, any action on his part would draw him more deeply back into the Blagojemess when he has more important things to do.

Incredibly, another thing did not happen to block the Blagovernor’s appointment — even with the passage of three weeks since Blago’s arrest.  The Legislature did not even try to strip the Governor of his power to appoint.  It’s true that Blago could have vetoed any such bill or simply let it die at year’s end, but passage of a bill would have further tainted a Blago appointment and made it harder for him to find a compliant appointee.  But the Legislature failed to act because the Democratic leadership, after giving the matter a bit of thought, decided they did not want to risk a special election in which a favored Democrat might not win.  Lieutenant Governor Quinn prefers to oust Blago and make the appointment himself.  Attorney General Lisa Madigan would like to get the appointment for herself, and her Dad, the powerful leader of the Illinois House, would prefer to make a deal than let the voters of Illinois decide.

So, nothing has been done except to launch an impeachment inquiry looks increasingly pretty lame.  Blagojevich said he was going to fight “to my last breath.”  He obviously meant it.  His message to his adversaries seems to be characteristic of him: @#!8%! off!

(Visit me at The Purple Center)

December 30, 2008 07:02 PM

In a surprising move, embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich will make an appointment to fill Obama's Senate seat. From the looks of it, this appointment will be difficult for the U.S. Senate to refuse:

-I've learned that Gov. Blagojevich is poised to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President elect Barack Obama in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. The embattled Blagojevich is fighting impeachment charges in the Illinois House for, among other reasons, trying to auction off the Senate seat held by President elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich called a press conference for 2 p.m. Chicago time at the Thompson State of Illinois Center.

Burris was the first African American to win statewide office in Illinois when he was elected comptroller, serving from 1983 to 1991. He served as Illinois Attorney General from 1991 to 1995. Burris previously ran and lost bids for the U.S. senate and governor. Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) had said he would ask the Senate not to seat any Blagojevich appointee, in order to make sure the seat is free of taint.

I don't think it will be easy for Reid to refuse to seat Burris, unless Obama publicly supports the refusal. Refusing to seat a history-making African-American to the Senate, especially one who will be a caretaker and who appears to have kept himself squeaky clean in an often corrupt state

My home state's culture of political corruption is well documented. Roland Burris managed to build a career in politics in this state without falling into that muck. He is, to the best of everyone's knowledge, squeaky clean, and he's highly respected. He's 71 years old, so I wonder if he intends to serve as a caretaker. But he's an honorable guy, well liked by people across the state in both parties. It's a stroke of brilliance by Blagojevich in my opinion.

Reid might still refuse to seat Burris, but this is a fairly shrewd move by Blagojevich. Refusing to seat Burris will not come without at least some backlash, especially if the seat stays vacant instead.

Update: It seems likely that, if Burris is appointed and seated, he would run in 2010. After all, that is what he said Obama's appointment should do.

December 30, 2008 06:03 PM

Now that's what I call chutzpah:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.

The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

Shortly after Obama's Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich's arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor's support.

Though he is 71, Burris has said that Obama's replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, he's never lost to a Republican.

All this shows what a complete screwhead Blagojevich is. Burris is an old-school Chicago politician who, within the Democratic Party in Illinois, is considered well on the other side of the aisle from Obama. Early word from the Senate indicates that Burris will not be considered acceptable -- especially if he has Blago's blessing.

What a mess.

December 30, 2008 06:02 PM